can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
Abysmal Horror
Rather, I should ask, "may a paladin make a deal with the devil, but
yet remain a paladin"?
The basic answer is presumably "no," but I'd like to hear people's
opinions as to how close one could come. Obviously, selling one's
soul crosses the line. But what about just playing a little footsie
with infernal powers in furtherance of a cause that is undeniably
Lawful and Good? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing?
Specifically, the PCs' high-level paladin patron is mounting an
invasion of the lands of his awful half-fiendish neighbor (Iuz of the
Greyhawk campaign setting, for those of you scoring at home). Iuz has
many enemies, some of whom are Good and some of whom are Evil.
Let's say that Iuz's Evil enemies (the Horned Society/Vecna
cultists/disciples of Asmodeus/miscellaneous opportunistic baddies to
be named later) approach not the paladin patron, but the PCs -- a much
less scrupulous bunch, to be sure -- and offer their assistance.
Now, if the PCs choose to take whatever help they can get, they'll
have their own problems later; that's not what I'm concerned with
right now. I'm interested in the dilemma of the paladin NPC. If he
comes to suspect that his agents are dealing with Evil powers, what
course of action would he follow? He's got a war to fight, after all.
TIA,
~ Aby
David Johnston
Horror) wrote:
Well what his agents do without his permission has no bearing on
his honor. His paladinhood is not threatened. The only thing it
really does is call their brains and/or loyalty into question. Based
on his personal assessment of the PC's character, he could just
call them on the carpet and scold them for being stupid, decide to be
careful not to entrust them with sensitive information or roles,
dismiss them from his service for being unreliable, or imprison
or execute them if he thinks they really were selling him out.
Senator Blutarsky
>
<snip>
> Now, if the PCs choose to take whatever help they can get, they'll
> have their own problems later; that's not what I'm concerned with
> right now. I'm interested in the dilemma of the paladin NPC. If he
> comes to suspect that his agents are dealing with Evil powers, what
> course of action would he follow? He's got a war to fight, after all.
This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never
knowingly associate with evil characters, nor
will she continue an association with someone
who consistently offends her moral code." PHB,
page 44.
Playing a little footsie with infernal powers
in furtherance of a cause that is undeniably
Lawful and Good? OUT.
Suspecting that his agents are associating with
Evil powers? He reminds said agents that Evil
is never to be parleyed with, no matter how good
one's intentions may be, and follows up with
eventual disassociation from those agents if
they continue their unsavory acquaintanceship.
The key is *knowledge*. If the paladin knows
(or even suspects) some kind of footsying with
Evil types is, uh...afoot <ducks>, then he is
required by his code to take action. He
doesn't get to invoke "plausible deniability"
or any of that bullshit. He's either pure in
his heart or he's an ex-paladin.
If, on the other hand, he is sincerely unaware
that his agents are brokering with Evil, he's
in the clear.
-Bluto
Ubiquitous
abysmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
>
>Rather, I should ask, "may a paladin make a deal with the devil, but
>yet remain a paladin"?
>
>The basic answer is presumably "no," but I'd like to hear people's
>opinions as to how close one could come.
I remember there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the
post Greyhwak wars, in particular the treaty signed between the Paladin
king of Furyundy and Iuz. Even more controversal was what happened
to said Paladin when he broke the peace treaty and attacked Iuz's
troops after discovering Iuz was not abiding by the treaty.
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
Ken Andrews
wrote:
>I remember there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the
>post Greyhwak wars, in particular the treaty signed between the Paladin
>king of Furyundy and Iuz. Even more controversal was what happened
>to said Paladin when he broke the peace treaty and attacked Iuz's
>troops after discovering Iuz was not abiding by the treaty.
Curiosity question. If Iuz wasn't abiding by the treaty (i.e., he
broke the treaty), then how could anyone claim that the Paladin broke
the treaty?
Zimri
news:74WdnW5oWtn...@comcast.com...
> In article <5816ef3f.0408...@posting.google.com>,
> abysmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
> >
> >Rather, I should ask, "may a paladin make a deal with the devil, but
> >yet remain a paladin"?
> >
> >The basic answer is presumably "no," but I'd like to hear people's
> >opinions as to how close one could come.
>
> I remember there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the
> post Greyhwak wars, in particular the treaty signed between the Paladin
> king of Furyundy and Iuz. Even more controversal was what happened
> to said Paladin when he broke the peace treaty and attacked Iuz's
> troops after discovering Iuz was not abiding by the treaty.
It would seem that Iuz broke the treaty. Paladins are supposed to be Lawful
Good, not Lawful Doormat, dude.
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*new improved shorter .sig*
Michael Scott Brown
news:5816ef3f.0408...@posting.google.com...
> Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
Notice that part where paladins have Serious Issues (tm) with working
with Evil allies?
The question is already answered.
-Michael
Clawhound
My short answer:
Directly make a deal? No.
Make a deal of necessity? Yes. (If one allows that paladins can have
moral judgement and situational flexibility. "I will let you buy milk at
the quickie mart, but only THIS time.")
Indirectly make a deal through a mediator? Yes. ("Go talk to his enemies
and see if you can sway them into action. I can make no deals with them,
nor offer any resources, but you are not under any such obligation. Do
what you can.")
Ultimately, this boils down to what your GM thinks a Paladin can or
can't do.
CH
Clawhound
In the abstract, this is easy, but when you consider that a paladin is
part of a party or a larger organization, then you have a problem. I
argue that "paladins aren't robots." They aren't mindless crusaders for
good at all costs. They are mind-full. They have choices. That's a great
thing for a character.
I'm sure that this thread will go on and on, cause that's what paladin
threads do. I reserve the right of the GM to make some ultimate
decisions about how the class works in his own world. I reserve the
right for the players to try new things with a paladin, as long as the
character still has limits. I reserve the rights of others to play the
class as fits their group. And there's no resolution to the arguments,
because there's just no resolution.
CH
J.O. Aho
>Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
>
>Rather, I should ask, "may a paladin make a deal with the devil, but
>yet remain a paladin"?
>
>The basic answer is presumably "no," but I'd like to hear people's
>opinions as to how close one could come.
If following the rules set in PHB/Paladins Handbook, a paladin woudn't be able
to cooperate in any way with a creature it knows is evil, without loosing
his/her powers.
IMHO the AD&D paladin is quite impossible to play and far from the body guards
of the french king as they where in reality.
Abysmal Horror
> Abysmal Horror wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Now, if the PCs choose to take whatever help they can get, they'll
> > have their own problems later; that's not what I'm concerned with
> > right now. I'm interested in the dilemma of the paladin NPC. If he
> > comes to suspect that his agents are dealing with Evil powers, what
> > course of action would he follow? He's got a war to fight, after all.
>
> This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never
> knowingly associate with evil characters, nor
> will she continue an association with someone
> who consistently offends her moral code." PHB,
> page 44.
Ah, but it's the "consistently" part that gets me. The PCs aren't
Evil.
> Playing a little footsie with infernal powers
> in furtherance of a cause that is undeniably
> Lawful and Good? OUT.
>
> Suspecting that his agents are associating with
> Evil powers? He reminds said agents that Evil
> is never to be parleyed with, no matter how good
> one's intentions may be, and follows up with
> eventual disassociation from those agents if
> they continue their unsavory acquaintanceship.
I agree.
> The key is *knowledge*. If the paladin knows
> (or even suspects) some kind of footsying with
> Evil types is, uh...afoot <ducks>, then he is
> required by his code to take action. He
> doesn't get to invoke "plausible deniability"
> or any of that bullshit. He's either pure in
> his heart or he's an ex-paladin.
>
> If, on the other hand, he is sincerely unaware
> that his agents are brokering with Evil, he's
> in the clear.
I agree that if he has suspicions, he's obliged to take action -- but
how much action?
Let's say the PCs show up on the eve of battle with {the Staff of
Unspeakable Awesomeness/the blueprints of the battle station/the Holy
Grail}. Whatever it is, the paladin is pretty sure they didn't have
it the last time he talked to them, some weeks ago.
OK, so, the first thing he'd do is ask, "Hey, where'd you get that?"
They would undoubtedly reply, "Uh ... we found it under a rock in that
dungeon we plundered the other day," whereas in truth, it was provided
to them by an <ominous music>Agent of Evil</ominous music>.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that their Bluff beats his Sense
Motive, so he can't just tell from their sweating and stammering that
they're lying. Now, he's not stupid, so I think he's still likely to
suspect that they're lying, because it's an awfully convenient
coincidence.
However, at dawn, the paladin's army will valiantly and honorably
engage the vile foe. {The Staff/the blueprints/the Grail} -- not to
mention the PCs themselves -- could very well swing the battle. So,
what does he do now?
freakybaby
news:xfVYc.9164$6o3...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Is it, the issue can get kind of grey. Although I can only think of one
decent example, where a deal could be struck.
What if the paladin cut a deal where he willing sacrifices his life to
enteral torture, so others might go free and continue on the path the fate
has plotted out before them, to achive there goals of greater good.
In fact that is about the only deal I think a paladin could be willing to
make.
Abysmal Horror
Well, yeah. But what about a second-hand relationship? (If you're
interested, please see my response to Bluto for details of the
specific situation IMC.)
Some of the PCs, who are not themselves Evil, have already chosen to
make connections with questionable elements. I'd like to create a
chain of events that could allow the PCs to facilitate the corruption
of the paladin, their NPC patron, who is currently at war against a
Chaotic Evil half-fiend.
I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of the LE powers of
the campaign world, who see an opportunity to kill two birds with one
stone -- one CE and one LG. How could they go about this effectively?
Any advice?
Clawhound
This really depends on what a playgroup allows. If you follow the letter
of the description, a paladin could not even offer an evil person the
option to surrender, because that would be making a deal with an evil
person!!! That makes no sense.
What paladins do need is a clear code of ethics that describes what they
can and can't do, and not a few lines about good and evil.
CH
Michael Scott Brown
news:5816ef3f.0408...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<xfVYc.9164$6o3...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
working
> > with Evil allies?
> > The question is already answered.
>
> Well, yeah. But what about a second-hand relationship?
Your people
cannot contact
my people
if your people
eat people
Paladin can always phoenix-like
sacrifice virtue
for greater good
-Michael
Zimri
news:wp2Zc.1106$Ny6....@mencken.net.nih.gov...
That will depend on the paladin's deity. Planescape rules have paladin
deities in Arcadia as well as the Seven Heavens, which in alignment terms
means they're lawful and half-good/half-neutral.
Although, since these deities are always lawful or at least have a lawful
tint, there will always *be* a code of ethics. Not like your vague warrior
codes over in Ysgard and suchlike.
Senator Blutarsky
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> >
> > This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never
> > knowingly associate with evil characters, nor
> > will she continue an association with someone
> > who consistently offends her moral code." PHB,
> > page 44.
>
> Ah, but it's the "consistently" part that gets me. The PCs aren't
> Evil.
They don't have to be Evil to consistently offend
his moral code. I don't see what is "getting" you.
<snip>
> I agree that if he has suspicions, he's obliged to take action -- but
> how much action?
I think the actions I suggested are reasonable.
<snip>
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that their Bluff beats his Sense
> Motive, so he can't just tell from their sweating and stammering that
> they're lying. Now, he's not stupid, so I think he's still likely to
> suspect that they're lying, because it's an awfully convenient
> coincidence.
I disagree with you. You factor the "awfully
convenient coincidence" into the opposed Bluff
vs. Sense Motive check. (See PHB.) If the
paladin blew his Sense Motive, he believed
them.
> However, at dawn, the paladin's army will valiantly and honorably
> engage the vile foe. {The Staff/the blueprints/the Grail} -- not to
> mention the PCs themselves -- could very well swing the battle. So,
> what does he do now?
He's not obligated to do anything. He has no
reason to suspect the PCs of any wrongdoing.
-Bluto
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
Or "I won't harm you if you agree not to do more evil acts."
Abysmal Horror
> Abysmal Horror wrote:
> >
> > Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> > >
> > > This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never
> > > knowingly associate with evil characters, nor
> > > will she continue an association with someone
> > > who consistently offends her moral code." PHB,
> > > page 44.
> >
> > Ah, but it's the "consistently" part that gets me. The PCs aren't
> > Evil.
>
> They don't have to be Evil to consistently offend
> his moral code. I don't see what is "getting" you.
Well, what I mean is, how consistently is "consistently"? What I'm
looking for is a sense of just how far the PCs could go before the
paladin would feel compelled to cut them off.
> > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that their Bluff beats his Sense
> > Motive, so he can't just tell from their sweating and stammering that
> > they're lying. Now, he's not stupid, so I think he's still likely to
> > suspect that they're lying, because it's an awfully convenient
> > coincidence.
>
> I disagree with you. You factor the "awfully
> convenient coincidence" into the opposed Bluff
> vs. Sense Motive check. (See PHB.) If the
> paladin blew his Sense Motive, he believed
> them.
>
> > However, at dawn, the paladin's army will valiantly and honorably
> > engage the vile foe. {The Staff/the blueprints/the Grail} -- not to
> > mention the PCs themselves -- could very well swing the battle. So,
> > what does he do now?
>
> He's not obligated to do anything. He has no
> reason to suspect the PCs of any wrongdoing.
OK, that's fair. Let's say, then, that he makes his Sense Motive
check -- he believes the PCs are lying about the provenance of the
item. Otherwise, the situation is the same. Now what?
~ Aby
PS: Thank you for your feedback. Much obliged.
David Johnston
<mona...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Abysmal Horror wrote:
>>
>> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>> >
>> > This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never
>> > knowingly associate with evil characters, nor
>> > will she continue an association with someone
>> > who consistently offends her moral code." PHB,
>> > page 44.
>>
>> Ah, but it's the "consistently" part that gets me. The PCs aren't
>> Evil.
>
>They don't have to be Evil to consistently offend
>his moral code. I don't see what is "getting" you.
Of course one incident doesn't constitute consistently offending.
>
><snip>
>
>> I agree that if he has suspicions, he's obliged to take action -- but
>> how much action?
>
>I think the actions I suggested are reasonable.
>
><snip>
>
>> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that their Bluff beats his Sense
>> Motive, so he can't just tell from their sweating and stammering that
>> they're lying. Now, he's not stupid, so I think he's still likely to
>> suspect that they're lying, because it's an awfully convenient
>> coincidence.
>
>I disagree with you. You factor the "awfully
>convenient coincidence" into the opposed Bluff
>vs. Sense Motive check. (See PHB.) If the
>paladin blew his Sense Motive, he believed
>them.
Besides, it may not be a coincidence at all without being
evidence of collusion. After all, the other evil guys may just
have decided that it was in their interest to help out the
PC team without even speaking to them.
David Johnston
Horror) wrote:
>Senator Blutarsky <mona...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<4136786A...@comcast.net>...
>> Abysmal Horror wrote:
>> >
>> > Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never
>> > > knowingly associate with evil characters, nor
>> > > will she continue an association with someone
>> > > who consistently offends her moral code." PHB,
>> > > page 44.
>> >
>> > Ah, but it's the "consistently" part that gets me. The PCs aren't
>> > Evil.
>>
>> They don't have to be Evil to consistently offend
>> his moral code. I don't see what is "getting" you.
>
>Well, what I mean is, how consistently is "consistently"? What I'm
>looking for is a sense of just how far the PCs could go before the
>paladin would feel compelled to cut them off.
The Paladin has a lot of room for interpretation. What you have
to do is ask yourself, "Have the characters done enough that
I should be seriously considering shifting them to Evil?". If they
have, then he is compelled to cut them off. If they've been a
little bit grey on occasion, that probably isn't enough.
>
>> > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that their Bluff beats his Sense
>> > Motive, so he can't just tell from their sweating and stammering that
>> > they're lying. Now, he's not stupid, so I think he's still likely to
>> > suspect that they're lying, because it's an awfully convenient
>> > coincidence.
>>
>> I disagree with you. You factor the "awfully
>> convenient coincidence" into the opposed Bluff
>> vs. Sense Motive check. (See PHB.) If the
>> paladin blew his Sense Motive, he believed
>> them.
>>
>> > However, at dawn, the paladin's army will valiantly and honorably
>> > engage the vile foe. {The Staff/the blueprints/the Grail} -- not to
>> > mention the PCs themselves -- could very well swing the battle. So,
>> > what does he do now?
>>
>> He's not obligated to do anything. He has no
>> reason to suspect the PCs of any wrongdoing.
>
>OK, that's fair. Let's say, then, that he makes his Sense Motive
>check -- he believes the PCs are lying about the provenance of the
>item. Otherwise, the situation is the same. Now what?
Use the PCs for now. Make inquiries later.
Joe Auerbach
not where he and the devil are working side by freaking side.
Now, i think a paladin can speak civilly to evil, that's certrainly
permiseable and I see nothing wrong with a civil agrement from time oit
time. An example from my own game.
A swamp is filled with evil demonic beings. The leader of these beings
is very powerful. the Kind, a paladin, has agreed to a truce saying
that his forces will not attempt to take the swamp and in return the
evil of the swamp will stay in the swamp and not venture out into his
lands. I think that situation is perfectly reasonable. The Paladin
has solved a problem for his people without bringing about bloodshed.
they are safe. And sure, the evil is safer as well, but a paladin
cannot hope to vanquish all the world's evil and sequestering it to a
swamp is better than letting it run free.
The same paladin cannot, though, make a deal wherin he will give the
demon lord a fresh young baby every few years in exchange for them
staying in the swamp. he may not ask the demon lord for help fending
off an oncoming army. He may not even ask the demon lord for a good
recipie for chicken without being in moral damger.
Ubiquitous
abysmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Senator Blutarsky <mona...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> They don't have to be Evil to consistently offend
>> his moral code. I don't see what is "getting" you.
>
>Well, what I mean is, how consistently is "consistently"? What I'm
>looking for is a sense of just how far the PCs could go before the
>paladin would feel compelled to cut them off.
Hopefully, some time before the DM has to remind you.
DMs get real testy about that.
Ubiquitous
The problem was that Iuz hadn't broken the treaty -- yet -- but
the paladin knew that Iuz was amassing troops ont the border for
an impending blitzkreig attack. I'd have to look it up for more
details.
Ubiquitous
>>Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
>
>If following the rules set in PHB/Paladins Handbook, a paladin woudn't be able
>to cooperate in any way with a creature it knows is evil, without loosing
>his/her powers.
What rules? They removed them in 3E.
Ubiquitous
zim...@SBCspammlesforglobal.net wrote:
>That will depend on the paladin's deity. Planescape rules have paladin
>deities in Arcadia as well as the Seven Heavens, which in alignment terms
>means they're lawful and half-good/half-neutral.
>
>Although, since these deities are always lawful or at least have a lawful
>tint, there will always *be* a code of ethics. Not like your vague warrior
>codes over in Ysgard and suchlike.
I liked the variant paladins that were in Dragon recently; a _LOT_.
Senator Blutarsky
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> > Abysmal Horror wrote:
> > >
> > > Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never
> > > > knowingly associate with evil characters, nor
> > > > will she continue an association with someone
> > > > who consistently offends her moral code." PHB,
> > > > page 44.
> > >
> > > Ah, but it's the "consistently" part that gets me. The PCs aren't
> > > Evil.
> >
> > They don't have to be Evil to consistently offend
> > his moral code. I don't see what is "getting" you.
>
> Well, what I mean is, how consistently is "consistently"? What I'm
> looking for is a sense of just how far the PCs could go before the
> paladin would feel compelled to cut them off.
There is no "bright line rule" here. "Consistently"
is deliberately left vague. What you need to focus
on is the *spirit* of the code: no wink-wink footsie
with Evil types. Paladins are *serious* about
alignment.
Keep in mind that "cutting them off" is one of the
*first* things a paladin will do to correct their
behavior, not the last. "Laying the holy smackdown"
is always an option, too, but temperance demands
that one try a gentler approach first.
<snip>
> > He's not obligated to do anything. He has no
> > reason to suspect the PCs of any wrongdoing.
>
> OK, that's fair. Let's say, then, that he makes his Sense Motive
> check -- he believes the PCs are lying about the provenance of the
> item. Otherwise, the situation is the same. Now what?
The options are infinite. First, he'll probably
wonder why they felt the need to lie to him, and may
even ask them directly. When he finds out the truth,
he will at a minimum admonish them for jeopardizing
their souls by consorting with Evil types. ("This is
what I've been warning you about all these years. Do
you see how easily you succumbed to the temptation
they placed before you? How readily you betrayed
your oaths to me, and lied to conceal it?") Most
importantly, though, he will inform them that their
actions are not acceptable, and any future "footsie"
will be severely dealt with.
> PS: Thank you for your feedback. Much obliged.
No sweat. :-)
-Bluto
Ed Chauvin IV
>>abysmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
>>
>>If following the rules set in PHB/Paladins Handbook, a paladin woudn't be able
>>to cooperate in any way with a creature it knows is evil, without loosing
>>his/her powers.
>>
>>of the french king as they where in reality.
>
Just a wild guess here, AD&D?
Ed Chauvin IV
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ubiquitous
: "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
:> I remember there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the
:> post Greyhwak wars, in particular the treaty signed between the Paladin
:> king of Furyundy and Iuz. Even more controversal was what happened
:> to said Paladin when he broke the peace treaty and attacked Iuz's
:> troops after discovering Iuz was not abiding by the treaty.
:
: It would seem that Iuz broke the treaty. Paladins are supposed to be Lawful
: Good, not Lawful Doormat, dude.
In Planting of 586 CY, Furyondy discovered evidence that Iuz
was preparing to raise an undead army against it. Disregarding
the Pact of Greyhawk, King Belvor and his nobles began a crusade
to reclaim Furyondian lands that Iuz had conquered. By the end of
588 CY, they had succeeded, but the king nevertheless declared
permanent and unalterable war on Iuz.
-- Greyhawk Players' Guide, p 12
Cecil Chua
> In article <5816ef3f.0408...@posting.google.com>,
Irish mythology has it that Saint Catherine made a deal with the
devil. In exchange for her soul, the devil would lift the famine on
Ireland. The devil lifts the famine, and comes to claim Catherine's
soul. However, god intervenes stating that the devil cannot claim a
soul that has engaged in such sacrifice.
In other words, yes, a paladin can make a deal with the devil.
Cecil Chua
JB
"Cecil Chua" <aeh...@ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message
news:6cc95796.0409...@posting.google.com...
Saints aren't Paladins. Paladins aren't Christian. Irish Mythology does
not define the D&D game or alignment rules.
Joe Auerbach
in there. Not numbered as they were, but it clearly states that a
paladin will not associate with evil. What book do you think we've
been quoting?
Joe Auerbach
saint either. Not a catholic saint anyway, and I suspect that the
vatican has an opinion.
There is a st. Catherine of Sweden who was the daughter of St. brigid,
who of course did noot exist either. Are you maybe thinking of her?
or of Saint Brigid who also did not exist?
Ubiquitous
: web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote in message news:<74WdnW5oWtn...@comcast.com>...
:> >Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
:
: Irish mythology has it that Saint Catherine made a deal with the
: devil. In exchange for her soul, the devil would lift the famine on
: Ireland. The devil lifts the famine, and comes to claim Catherine's
: soul. However, god intervenes stating that the devil cannot claim a
: soul that has engaged in such sacrifice.
That's lame.
Clawhound
That's right... take all the drama out of the class.
I think the rule is more to say, "The paladin does not go adventuring
with a bunch of cutthroats and thieves." That is, a paladin will be
aware of his compatriot's dispositions.
I don't think it's meant to say that he won't converse with evil people,
negociate with them, or must attack them on-sight crying "die evil cretin."
So, imagine a paladin who's orders are to "go down to the docks, patrol,
and get those thugs to stop killing each other in turf wars. I don't
want to see any more dead bodies." That's a great paladin mandate, but
the scenario is not playable if the paladin can't talk to people. What's
all the charisma for if they can't talk to people?
Just use a little dramatic common-sense. That's all I ask.
CH
David Johnston
>web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote in message news:<74WdnW5oWtn...@comcast.com>...
>> In article <5816ef3f.0408...@posting.google.com>,
>> abysmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
>> >
>Irish mythology has it that Saint Catherine made a deal with the
>devil. In exchange for her soul, the devil would lift the famine on
>Ireland. The devil lifts the famine, and comes to claim Catherine's
>soul. However, god intervenes stating that the devil cannot claim a
>soul that has engaged in such sacrifice.
Cheater! Cheater!
>
>In other words, yes, a paladin can make a deal with the devil.
That's not a deal. That's a swindle.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Now, if the PCs choose to take whatever help they can get, they'll
>> have their own problems later; that's not what I'm concerned with
>> right now. I'm interested in the dilemma of the paladin NPC. If he
>> comes to suspect that his agents are dealing with Evil powers, what
>> course of action would he follow? He's got a war to fight, after
>> all.
Senator Blutarsky <mona...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never knowingly associate
> with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with
> someone who consistently offends her moral code." PHB, page 44.
Please keep in mind that association and negotiation aren't the same
thing. Association specifically implies partnership, alliance,
friendship, comradeship, or similar close relationship. For example, a
diplomat in an enemy nation will likely /negotiate/ with the enemy but
not /associate/ with them.
Therefore, a paladin won't buddy up with bad guys, and he won't tolerate
companions who do the same. He shouldn't engage in "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend" behavior. However, he may negotiate with evil
creatures so long as he does not participate in acts of evil, acts of
chaos, or partnership with the evil creatures.
That rules out traditional "deals with the devil," where the dealer gets
something selfish in exchange for his soul. However, it does not rule
out all negotiation; otherwise, it would be impossible for a paladin to
negotiate truces and surrenders, as other posters have noted.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
David Johnston
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Therefore, a paladin won't buddy up with bad guys, and he won't tolerate
>companions who do the same. He shouldn't engage in "the enemy of my
>enemy is my friend" behavior. However, he may negotiate with evil
>creatures so long as he does not participate in acts of evil, acts of
>chaos, or partnership with the evil creatures.
>
>That rules out traditional "deals with the devil," where the dealer gets
>something selfish in exchange for his soul. However, it does not rule
>out all negotiation; otherwise, it would be impossible for a paladin to
>negotiate truces and surrenders, as other posters have noted.
Yeah. So the real question is not what the characters have done,
which is not so bad, but what the Paladin thinks they might have
done. Simply accepting the plot device du jour from the bad guys
which they are offering for no other reason than they want the other
bad guy whacked isn't a problem as long as they didn't require
an Evil payback. But how likely is it that the Evil guys wouldn't
at least try to negotiate some kind of recompense for their
assistance?
Ubiquitous
mister...@earthlink.net wrote:
>"Abysmal Horror" <abysmal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
>
>Notice that part where paladins have Serious Issues (tm) with working
>with Evil allies? The question is already answered.
Alas, the rules for that are so watered down now as to be useless.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I think the rule is more to say, "The paladin does not go adventuring
> with a bunch of cutthroats and thieves." That is, a paladin will be
> aware of his compatriot's dispositions.
>
> I don't think it's meant to say that he won't converse with evil people,
> negociate with them, or must attack them on-sight crying "die evil cretin."
Correct. Association and negotiation are not synonyms.
Cecil Chua
> Nor was saint Catherine a paladin. She is not, case in point, a real
> saint either. Not a catholic saint anyway, and I suspect that the
> vatican has an opinion.
That's why I said IRISH MYTHOLOGY (not Catholic mythology).
The logic of my argument goes like this:
Catherine=symbol of ultimate lawful goodness (at least in the stories.
She is a "saint").
Paladin is supposed to be the ultimate symbol of lawful goodness.
Catherine deals with the devil and yet does not compromise her lawful
goodness.
Therefore it is possible for the ultimate symbol of lawful goodness to
deal with the devil.
Yes, I am not working from rules. What I am doing is demonstrating
that some cultural perspectives would allow this kind of argument. To
the extent that a paladin role-plays a particular cultural perspective
it would be allowable.
As another example, god deals with the devil in Job. This would be a
Catholic mythology example, but a less clear one. In Job, it is hard
to argue god acting in a lawful good manner.
Cecil Chua
John Phillips
"Cecil Chua" wrote
> "Joe Auerbach" wrote
> > Nor was saint Catherine a paladin. She is not, case in point, a real
> > saint either. Not a catholic saint anyway, and I suspect that the
> > vatican has an opinion.
>
> That's why I said IRISH MYTHOLOGY (not Catholic mythology).
>
> The logic of my argument goes like this:
>
> Catherine=symbol of ultimate lawful goodness (at least in the stories.
> She is a "saint").
Why do you assume that a Saint is Lawful Good?
Still, the idea of 'Take me instead of them' can fit with Lawful Good, even
though it may be a bit short sighted. But then common sense has little to do
with Alignment.
<snip>
> As another example, god deals with the devil in Job. This would be a
> Catholic mythology example, but a less clear one. In Job, it is hard
> to argue god acting in a lawful good manner.
Not successfully at any rate.
John
Keith Davies
>
> Yes, I am not working from rules. What I am doing is demonstrating
> that some cultural perspectives would allow this kind of argument. To
> the extent that a paladin role-plays a particular cultural perspective
> it would be allowable.
>
> As another example, god deals with the devil in Job. This would be a
> Catholic mythology example, but a less clear one. In Job, it is hard
> to argue god acting in a lawful good manner.
It's hard to argue that he *is* acting in a lawful good manner? Or hard
to argue against him acting in a lawful good manner (since in that
mythos is more or less defines it)?
If I recall that story correctly, "destruct-test my worshipper's faith
by visiting him with as many afflictions and problems as you can come up
with" doesn't sound very Good. Lawful perhaps, but not Good.
Keith
--
Keith Davies
keith....@kjdavies.org
"Some do and some don't. I *hate* that kind of problem."
"Understandable. Consistency is important with fuck ups."
forumite
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:xfVYc.9164$6o3...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Abysmal Horror" <abysmal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5816ef3f.0408...@posting.google.com...
> >> Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
> >
> > Notice that part where paladins have Serious Issues (tm) with working
> > with Evil allies?
> > The question is already answered.
>
> decent example, where a deal could be struck.
>
> What if the paladin cut a deal where he willing sacrifices his life to
> enteral torture, so others might go free and continue on the path the fate
> has plotted out before them, to achive there goals of greater good.
>
> In fact that is about the only deal I think a paladin could be willing to
> make.
Only if your Paladin's alignment is Awful Stupid.
Gerald Katz
Senator Blutarsky
>
> Senator Blutarsky <mona...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > This is not difficult. "[A] paladin will never knowingly associate
> > with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with
> > someone who consistently offends her moral code." PHB, page 44.
>
> Please keep in mind that association and negotiation aren't the same
> thing.
Agreed, and 'nuff said.
-Bluto
Cecil Chua
> Why do you assume that a Saint is Lawful Good?
>
> Still, the idea of 'Take me instead of them' can fit with Lawful Good, even
> though it may be a bit short sighted. But then common sense has little to do
> with Alignment.
>
to keep= upholds bargain=>Lawful.
She does it to save the Irish=self-sacrifice=>Good.
Cecil Chua
Bradd W. Szonye
Cool!
freakybaby
news:d5c9d7f1.04090...@posting.google.com:
I dunno, I find most Paladins to be pain in the ass, and from time to
time doing stupid things for the greater good.
Courtney Love
What about St. Puce, the flea from Nathanael West's "The Dream Life Of Balso
Snell"?
--
"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor
citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang, as when
single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."
--Benjamin Franklin
Ubiquitous
>Mere moments before death, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) hastily scrawled:
>>What rules? They removed them in 3E.
>
>Just a wild guess here, AD&D?
Wow, how uncanny, except not.
Ed Chauvin IV
>>Mere moments before death, Ubiquitous hastily scrawled:
>>>In article <2pjeqeF...@uni-berlin.de>, us...@example.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If following the rules set in PHB/Paladins Handbook, a paladin woudn't be able
>>>>to cooperate in any way with a creature it knows is evil, without loosing
>>>>his/her powers.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO the AD&D paladin is quite impossible to play and far from the body guards
>> ^^^^
>>>>of the french king as they where in reality.
>>>
>>
>>Just a wild guess here, AD&D?
>
>Wow, how uncanny, except not.
Yeah, it really is uncanny the way someone can post a comment clearly
indicating they're discussing AD&D and you can still manage to look
like a fucktard asking what rules they're talking about.
Ubiquitous
To whom and to what article were you replying?
Abysmal Horror
The Helpful Bad Guys want to assist the PCs because a) they want the
Other Bad Guy whacked, and b) they want to corrupt the paladin. If
you were a Helpful Bad Guy, how would you go about this?
~ Aby
Werebat
Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <4133fed3.731277781@shawnews>, gob...@degook.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:41:28 -0500, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous)
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>I remember there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the
>>>post Greyhwak wars, in particular the treaty signed between the Paladin
>>>king of Furyundy and Iuz. Even more controversal was what happened
>>>to said Paladin when he broke the peace treaty and attacked Iuz's
>>>troops after discovering Iuz was not abiding by the treaty.
>>
>>Curiosity question. If Iuz wasn't abiding by the treaty (i.e., he
>>broke the treaty), then how could anyone claim that the Paladin broke
>>the treaty?
>
>
> The problem was that Iuz hadn't broken the treaty -- yet -- but
> the paladin knew that Iuz was amassing troops ont the border for
> an impending blitzkreig attack. I'd have to look it up for more
> details.
Why didn't the Paladin just give the UN inspectors more time to do their
jobs?
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
J.O. Aho wrote:
> abysmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Can a paladin make a deal with the devil?
>>
>> Rather, I should ask, "may a paladin make a deal with the devil, but
>> yet remain a paladin"?
>>
>> The basic answer is presumably "no," but I'd like to hear people's
>> opinions as to how close one could come.
>
>
> If following the rules set in PHB/Paladins Handbook, a paladin woudn't
> be able to cooperate in any way with a creature it knows is evil,
> without loosing his/her powers.
Hmm.
Soooo... If you're an evil demon, and you want to kill two birds with
one stone, as it were...
You disguise yourself to look like a devil, then go to the Paladin
yourself and try to convince him to attack the demon-allied armies on
the same day that the devil-allied armies plan to do so. Basically
offering a pact.
The Paladin won't be able to co-operate without losing his
Paladinhood... So you'll be assured that it won't happen!
In fact you could manipulate the Paladin into making all kinds of crazy
decisions just by asking him to help you out by doing the opposite, or
at least eliminate whatever actions you wanted to keep him from taking.
Clever.
> IMHO the AD&D paladin is quite impossible to play and far from the body
> guards of the french king as they where in reality.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
Ubiquitous wrote:
Well it was good enough for South Park.
The only lame thing about it is the devil agreeing to a deal that he
knows he'll lose. A devil, especially a D&D LE devil, would think like
a very very very very VERY competent and soulless lawyer when it came to
these matters.
It's possible that Satan figured the story would ultimately benefit him
somehow, which is why he agreed to the bargain in the first place
figuring he knew what the primary outcome would be. Who knows?
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
David Johnston wrote:
God doesn't swindle.
It'd be a swindle if God and St. Catherine were in cahoots from the
beginning, and she knew what the outcome would be.
Anyway, wouldn't the safest thing to do be to be a "soul broker", you
know, buy the souls yourself from other people and then sell THEM?
- Ron ^*^
Cecil Chua
> The only lame thing about it is the devil agreeing to a deal that he
> knows he'll lose. A devil, especially a D&D LE devil, would think like
> a very very very very VERY competent and soulless lawyer when it came to
> these matters.
>
There are numerous myths and legends that deal with tricking the
devil, or an evil "smart person." For example, there's one where a
Russian soldier has to spend the night in a haunted house. The devil
comes to take his soul away. The soldier tricks and scares away the
devil by first: (1) squeezing water from a sponge, and then pursuading
the devil the sponge is a rock, (2) eating nuts and pursuading the
devil that a bullet is a nut, and finally (3) getting the devil to
trap himself. The devil begs for freedom, and promises that he (a)
will show the soldier some hidden gold, and (b) not molest the soldier
in return for freedom.
Depending on the version, the devil is either "the devil," Kostschei
the Immortal (sp), or a kind of corporeal undead.
The "tricking the devil" theme is also present in "semi-modern" TV
series. For example, there was a twilight zone episode where the
devil plays a game with a professor for the possession of his soul.
The professor is allowed to give the devil three tasks. If the devil
cannot perform those tasks, the professor is set free. The
professor's final task is "get lost."
Cecil Chua
Jerry Chesko
> The "tricking the devil" theme is also present in "semi-modern" TV
> series. For example, there was a twilight zone episode where the
> devil plays a game with a professor for the possession of his soul.
> The professor is allowed to give the devil three tasks. If the devil
> cannot perform those tasks, the professor is set free. The
> professor's final task is "get lost."
>
> Cecil Chua
Lets not forget a certain US Country group called The Charlie Daniel's Band
who wrote "Devil went down to Georgia"
The devil went down to Georgia
He was lookin' for a soul to steal
He was in a bind
'Cause he was way behind
And he was willin' to make a deal
When he came upon this young man
Sawin' on a fiddle and playin' it hot
And the devil jumped
Up on a hickory stump
And said boy let me tell you what
I guess you didn't know it
but I'm a fiddle player too
And if you care to take a dare
I'll make a bet with you
Now you play a pretty good fiddle, boy
But give the devil his due
I'll bet a fiddle of gold
Against your soul
'Cause I think I'm better than you
The boy said my name's Johnny
And it might be a sin
But I'll take your bet
And you're gonna regret
'Cause I'm the best there's ever been
Johnny rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard
Cause hell's broke loose in Georgia and the devil deals the cards
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold
But if you lose the devil gets your soul.
The devil opened up his case
And he said I'll start this show
And fire flew from his fingertips
As he rosined up his bow
Then he pulled the bow across the strings
And it made a [sic] evil hiss
And a band of demons joined in
And it sounded something like this
[Instrumental]
When the devil finished
Johnny said well you're pretty good old son
Just sit right in that chair right there
And let me show you how it's done
He played Fire on the Mountain
Run boys, run
The devil's in the House of the Rising Sun
Chicken in a bread pan picken' out dough
Granny does your dog bite
No child, no
[Instrumental]
The devil bowed his head
Because he knew that he'd been beat
And he laid that golden fiddle
On the ground at Johnny's feet
Johnny said, Devil just come on back
If you ever wanna try again
I done told you once you son of a bitch
I'm the best there's ever been
And he played Fire on the Mountain
Run boys, run
The devil's in the House of the Rising Sun
Chicken in a bread pan picken' out dough
Granny does your dog bite
No child, no
[Instrumental to end]
Keith Davies
>
>> The "tricking the devil" theme is also present in "semi-modern" TV
>> series. For example, there was a twilight zone episode where the
>> devil plays a game with a professor for the possession of his soul.
>> The professor is allowed to give the devil three tasks. If the devil
>> cannot perform those tasks, the professor is set free. The
>> professor's final task is "get lost."
>
> who wrote "Devil went down to Georgia"
Johnny Cash did a follow-up some years later ("Devil Returns to
Georgia"?), after Johnny had gotten married, had a kid, hadn't had time
to practice his fiddle. I don't have it handy, though.
Keith
--
Keith Davies
keith....@kjdavies.org http://www.kjdavies.org/
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Lets not forget a certain US Country group called The Charlie
>> Daniel's Band who wrote "Devil went down to Georgia"
Y'know, the hero of that song is so prideful at the end of the song that
it's always made me wonder if the devil got the better of him.
Keith Davies wrote:
> Johnny Cash did a follow-up some years later ("Devil Returns to
> Georgia"?), after Johnny had gotten married, had a kid, hadn't had time
> to practice his fiddle. I don't have it handy, though.
Doesn't sound familiar.
Arivne
>> Jerry Chesko wrote:
>
>>> Lets not forget a certain US Country group called The Charlie
>>> Daniel's Band who wrote "Devil went down to Georgia"
>
>> Georgia"?), after Johnny had gotten married, had a kid, hadn't had time
>> to practice his fiddle. I don't have it handy, though.
>
> Doesn't sound familiar.
"The Devil Comes Back to Georgia"
http://www.cdbfan.com/lyrics/dcbtg.htm
Arivne
Kaos
I've heard it, but I don't think it was Cash who did it. In fact, I'm
pretty sure it was one of the modern pop-country bands, tho I'll be
damned if I can remember who.
I do know Cash did a cover of a NIN song.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I do know Cash did a cover of a NIN song.
"Hurt" from "The Downward Spiral." I didn't like the original much, and
I like Cash's cover even less.
Keith Davies
Huh, never realized it was Marty Stuart and Travis Tritt voicing the
characters (though thinking back it sounds right).
Kaos
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Kaos wrote:
>> I do know Cash did a cover of a NIN song.
>
>"Hurt" from "The Downward Spiral." I didn't like the original much, and
>I like Cash's cover even less.
Proving only that you have less taste in music than you do in fashion
:p
Miss Elaine Eos
Werebat <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote:
> > That's lame.
Alternately, neither God nor Satan exist, the famine ended on its own,
humans in the form of Irish Catholics wanted to take credit in order to
better control the gullible, and the person we know as Saint Catherine
is rotting in the ground, somewhere.
Misc "it could happen..."
--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.